Iranian Hostages

      Home » World events & politics » Iranian Hostages

Iranian Hostages

Everyone who pays attention to the news knows about the 15 sailors held by Iran.

 http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/...

The UK government claims they were in Iraqi waters, the Iranians claim they were in Iranian waters.


Iran also claimed that after the female sailor confessed, they would release her. Her confession was broadcasted across the world and now Iran will not release her and the marines will now stand trial for espionage.

Do you think the british have shown enough backbone in this matter? Or have they taken the road of appeasement?
By Xphilesphan: posted on 30-3-2007

I fear they are taking the road of appeasement. britain is having its balls removed by the Euro-Socialist dictatorship it is a part of, and is now afraid of offending the EU and its large Muslim population.

If Margaret Thatcher was still in office, the SAS would have already been in and out, the hostages rescued, and there would be a few large black glassy craters in Iran.
By Twilight_Rogue: posted on 30-3-2007

We already know the fate of "special forces" when dealing with IRAN. I think one such fiasco would be enough to make them think about such a plan again.
By IAF: posted on 30-3-2007

The confession of a hostage means nothing. She can confess to crimes she did, in fact, commit and it means nothing.

While I am inclined to agree with Rogue I would prefer to think they are taking the diplomatic angle so as to have a more righteous position later on down the road.
By Thomas_Crowne: posted on 30-3-2007

I have been watching this news with interest. From what commentators are saying its hard to know just who is in control in Iran over this farce.

There are different factions vieing for power, and the one that kidnapped the British soldiers, may not be the ones trying to make the peace now.

So on one hand the Iranians are churning out pathetic and shallow propaganda, supposedly for the west but in reality to reasure their own captive population that they are beating up on the British invaders.

But to the world they are trying to find a face saving way to get out of a difficult position. Thats why they are upset that britian just won't give an apology.

If Britian did that then the Iranians could go home happy.

However because Britian is rightly sticking to the truth, it means that Iran would have to admit that the area the soldiers were taken from IS Iraqi territory. This is something they don't want to say, because they fought 2 wars with iraq based on the territorial right of this bit of water.

So Iran is stuck in a quandry of its own making, or the making of a sub group wanting more power.

If they admit they were wrong, then they have to admit that sea area is not theirs, so how to justify the two previous wars over it.

If they stick to it being theirs and Britian refuses to apologise then how do they get out of a situation that looks like boiling over.

Its like the Falklands war in a way.

Argentina invaded the Falklands to increase public morale and be seen to be advancing Argentians interests domestically. They never expected Britian to go to war over it, and would have just handed it back with some treaty if the Belgrano hadn't been sunk.

I am all for Britian sticking to the truth and not giving the Iranians a way out. That might teach them not to underestimate the west so much in the future.

But what will eventuate If Britian DOES stick to its position? Iran cannot admit they were wrong, and so cannot give them back. It cannot be seen to lose face domestically and internationally among other Arab nations.

So it must try and execute or imprison the soldiers.

Britian canot accept that, and must threaten military action since diplomatic action will not work.

This needs to be sorted out with a form of game theory, a win - win situation where everyone saves face and can retire to their corners with some respect.
By netchicken: posted on 30-3-2007

Even if the sailors strayed into Iranian waters by accident Iran is acting as a rogue nation by holding the sailors hostage. That alone, not even taking into consideration that the hostages have been paraded on TV for purposes of propaganda, makes it clear that Iran ruled by civilized, law-abiding people but by rogues, renegades and tyrants.
By Thomas_Crowne: posted on 31-3-2007

... Quote:
Originally posted by Twilight_Rogue
I fear they are taking the road of appeasement. britain is having its balls removed by the Euro-Socialist dictatorship it is a part of, and is now afraid of offending the EU and its large Muslim population.



Sadly, I think you are correct about this. I think europe leaning towards socialism endangers the future of europe. I talk to alot of euros online who are so adament about socialism, it makes them look nearly like communists. They are convinced that the USA is europe's enemy and that no good can come from the War on Terror. Over on ATS its nearly impossible to have a decent conversation about the current political/war situation without it degrading into a "America=evil of the world" argument.

The appeasement path is a dangerous new direction for a bloc of countries that typically stood for western ideas. They seem more devoted to appeasement which leaves the US alone in the current global situation.

I understand entirely that the hostages are being persuaded into making their statements. Im sure there is an Iranian pointing a gun at one of their heads.

Did anyone else notice that they made the woman wear a head scarf?
By Xphilesphan: posted on 31-3-2007

... Quote:
Originally posted by Thomas_Crowne
The confession of a hostage means nothing. She can confess to crimes she did, in fact, commit and it means nothing.


Exactly. Anyone with a brain can see the video taped "confessions" are a load of bullshit, along with the "letters". Which obviously excludes liberals and Muslim terrorists....

These guys are being forced to write all this crap. They are most likely being mentally terrorized and have some gun toting nut holding a gun to them off camera.

... Quote:
While I am inclined to agree with Rogue I would prefer to think they are taking the diplomatic angle so as to have a more righteous position later on down the road.


Thats what my husband and I keep hoping. We keep hoping while they are playing the diplomatic word game, they are preparing a strike force on the side. We can hope. However, I still fear the eunach-making EU has cut the balls and teeth of britain, and this country has been so liberally choked. Which is a shame really. The british military gets little love or respect from public or government, sadly.

Whatever the end game, I hope these guys come home in one piece.

By the way, notice China and Russia in the UN have not condemned the kidnapping of these troops and are taking Iran's side. Should we really be surprised here?

Gentlemen, unsheath your daggers and commence backstabbing.

:sc
By Twilight_Rogue: posted on 1-4-2007

There is no doubt that the there is a line in the sand and there is no doubt which countries are on what side.
Europe has little in common with the U.S. now. Then again, it never had a whole lot in common with us. The fact that this country was created by people who were unassing the Euro-AO makes that clear. While they want to make it sound as if we are kids and they are the all-knowing mature countries, the only reason there has been a break in the almost continuous warfare on the European continent is because we have stabilized it. Because of the Marshall Plan, the Euros did not starve and fall into ruination or become a part of the Soviet Union and, the Euros have been able to temporarily spoil themselves with nanny states because we, the Kid, have spent so much on a military that was able to protect us and them. Of course allthings come to an end and eventually someone has to pay for the party and with the aging European population, low Euro-fertility rate and growing Muslim population, it is going to cost the Euros their heritage as well as their future.
By Thomas_Crowne: posted on 1-4-2007

... Quote:
Originally posted by Twilight_Rogue

Thats what my husband and I keep hoping. We keep hoping while they are playing the diplomatic word game, they are preparing a strike force on the side. We can hope. However, I still fear the eunach-making EU has cut the balls and teeth of britain, and this country has been so liberally choked. Which is a shame really. The british military gets little love or respect from public or government, sadly.


I heard them on Fox News talking about a plan to hit the only refinery in Iran. I could only guess that this is being considered by at least the US forces, if not Britain as well.

In the US we view liberalism as a retreat of the wealthy, or at least I do. I cant believe anyone would believe a foreign invasion of their country would be a good thing.
By Xphilesphan: posted on 1-4-2007

... Quote:
Originally posted by Thomas_Crowne
Even if the sailors strayed into Iranian waters by accident Iran is acting as a rogue nation by holding the sailors hostage. That alone, not even taking into consideration that the hostages have been paraded on TV for purposes of propaganda, makes it clear that Iran ruled by civilized, law-abiding people but by rogues, renegades and tyrants.


Well isn't nice to know that Iran and U.S. Administrations are on an equal playing field. They are both, " rogues, renegades and tyrants.":worm
By TUTUTKAMEN: posted on 2-4-2007

... Quote:
Originally posted by TUTUTKAMEN
Well isn't nice to know that Iran and U.S. Administrations are on an equal playing field. They are both, " rogues, renegades and tyrants.":worm


you could classify bush as a rogue, but I dont think you could the administration or the US government simply for the fact that his administration is temporary, and despite Iranian elections, the mullahs are really in charge in Iran. So, In my book Iran would be considered "Rogue".
By Xphilesphan: posted on 3-4-2007

I think its quite obvious what Iran's ploy is. These soldiers and the whole circus behind their capture and the efforts to release them is just another form of diplomacy to get the West to forget about the larger and more pressing issue of Iranian nuclear capability and instead focus on getting 15 insignificant sailors back. Maybe they are buying time or maybe they just want to create a distraction. Either way they now no longer face the imminent threat of full sanctions from the UN security council, at least in the short term. Recently, even the Russians seemed to be peeved with Iran regarding some dispute over their nuclear plant and were begining to side with the US, Uk and France towards imposing full sanctions on Iran. China would have capitulated eventually I suspect and knowing this they sought out a diversion to settle things with Russia and China or at least gain a distraction. Despite the posturing, I doubt the Iranians would execute the sailors.

The US and rest of the Security council should get back to the primary concern of Iranian nuclear weapons and force Tehran to discontinue its nuclear ambitions or face isolation from the rest of the world.
By IAF: posted on 3-4-2007

Well Iran certianly won that little game.

They kidnap some sailors, keep them as hostages, milk them for propaganda issues to establish their sea boundaries, and when they can't do any more with them return them to Britian.

And Amaninadinnerjacket gets THANKED by some of the hostages for setting them free, and comes out looking all in charge.

You cna bet Britian will not go anywhere near the 'borders' of Iran again and they can sail their contraband and oil anywhere they choose.
By netchicken: posted on 6-4-2007

I really hope you are wrong, Netty, but in reality, you are probably right. The west does not have the balls to fight this conflict. Britain has become a victim of decades in the castration club called the EU. And the US has no friggin idea what the hell we are supposed to be doing there.

We are sinking deeper in a no-win situation, and we wont get off as easily like we did in Vietnam.
By Twilight_Rogue: posted on 7-4-2007

Look at this... its sickening how some people have totally lost the plot...


The Roman Catholic bishop who oversees the armed forces has provoked fury by praising the Iranian leadership for its "forgiveness" and "act of mercy" in freeing the 15 British sailors and marines last week.
Bishop Burns said Iran demonstrated 'faith in a forgiving God'


The Bishop of the Forces, the Rt Rev Tom Burns, said that the religious beliefs of the Iranians had played a large part in their decision to release the hostages after holding them for more than two weeks.

His words were echoed by a leading Anglican figure, the Right Rev Michael Nazir-Ali, the Bishop of Rochester, who said Iran had acted within the "moral and spiritual tradition of their country" and contrasted this with Britain's "free-floating attitudes".

here
By netchicken: posted on 9-4-2007

Well its no better than these so called "soldiers" now trying to sell their stories to the highest bidder. Supposedly it is going to earn each of them quite a lot. Movie deals may follow! :o

All in all this is turning out to be a true reflection of the degeneracy in the British Armed forces. The more I hear about these "royal marines" the more I wonder if the US should turn to Canada or somebody else for a more proper military for support; apart from reminiscencing the 'glorious' old days the British Military are exhibiting behavior that would hardly be called soldiery.
By IAF: posted on 9-4-2007

I think the British army greatness is now just a fading mirage from the past...

Its sad but with the soldiers now selling the stories to the papers, as you mentioned, the spine has gone from the military.

Mind you the soldiers sold their souls to the Iranians for their propaganda so they might as well sell whats left to the media.
By netchicken: posted on 10-4-2007

Now, hold on.
In all fairness, this is going to be a great story. Hopefully it'll be produced to Hollywood standards. The story is going to be told and wouldn't it be best that they be the ones who tell the story? If they do, why shouldn't they make a pound or two from the sell?
Personally, I'd rather them write a book as I much prefer reading.

As far as them selling their souls for Iranian propaganda; they were taken hostage, held by violent savages and said what they had to say in order to survive. Everyone knew they were speaking out of threat, coersion and duress.
By Thomas_Crowne: posted on 10-4-2007

Its unprofessional and disgraceful. They arent civilans, they dont have a right to sell their sob stories for the world to pity them. they are supposed to be Marines and are supposed to do their jobs. I doubt the British Marine core manual says that upon capture they can spread enemy propaganda just so they could save their hides. Moreover, the British Government shouldn't be using such a serious issue as a propaganda tool one way or the other. So what if they were hostages. Its part of their job. They first cop to the Iranian coercion and then they want to make money out of it ?? Thats absurd. They should be facing court martial right now! What about John McCain and the hell he had to go through in a Vietnamese prison camp. He didnt cop to the Communists and run the fist chance he could.
... Quote:
From wikipedia:

On October 26, 1967, McCain's A-4 Skyhawk was shot down by an anti-aircraft missile, landing in Truc Bach Lake. He broke both arms and a leg after ejecting from his plane. After he regained consciousness, a mob gathered around him, spat on him, kicked him and stripped him of his clothing. He was then tortured by North Vietnamese soldiers, who bayonetted him in his left foot and groin. His shoulder was crushed by a rifle butt. He was then transported to the Hoa Lo Prison, also known as the Hanoi Hilton.[10]

Once McCain arrived at the Hanoi Hilton, he was placed in a cell and interrogated daily. When McCain refused to provide any information to his captors, he was beaten until he lost consciousness.[11]

When the North Vietnamese discovered his father was the Commander-in-Chief, Pacific Command, (CINCPAC), commander of all U.S. forces in Vietnam, he was offered a chance to return home. McCain turned down the offer of repatriation.[12]

McCain signed an anti-American propaganda message which was written in Vietnamese, but only as a result of rigorous and brutal torture methods, which to this day have left him incapable of raising his arms above his head. According to McCain, signing the propaganda message is something he most regrets during his time as a POW. After McCain signed the statement, the Vietnamese decided they could not use it. They tried to force him to sign a second statement, and this time he refused. He received two to three beatings per week because of his continued refusal.[13]

McCain was held as a prisoner of war in North Vietnam for five-and-a-half years, mostly in the infamous Hanoi Hilton, and was finally released from captivity in 1973, having been a POW for almost an extra five years due to his earlier refusal to accept an out of turn repatriation offer. McCain was reinstated to flight status and became Commanding Officer of the VA-174 Hellrazors, the East Coast A-7 Corsair II Navy training squadron.[14]



I cant speak for the British Marines but I know quite a few US Marines who dont think these people should have helped Iran spread its propaganda forget about selling their stories now. At least to the US Marines 'Semper fi' still means something!

Well now it seems that the British Government has heard how ridiculous and absurd their decision was and have stopped the soldiers from selling their stories.
By IAF: posted on 11-4-2007

Now, now, quit slamming on the British armed forceds. And IAF, your suggestion about the Canadians is laughable. Have you forgotten that Canada said they would offer Saddam Hussein assylum if he asked for it? The Canadians are far worse than the British forces. The canadians are so far out they don't realize the careened on their big Left turn.

As far as the British Marines selling their stories, it has attracted major anger and criticism from active military personnel, veterans, conservative newspapers, and families of soldiers who were killed in Iraq. So its not like this sort of behavior is totally condoned here. There has been alot of anger and critisism.

And before we start bashing the British military, I'd suggest actually looking into the multitude of social problems in this country. The media which is mostly left tends to have little to no respect for the armed forces at all, and the government reflects this fact. The fact that any young Briton still would want to join their country's military, despite deplorable living conditions, low wages, little to no support, little to no public sympathy, crap medical care, no real benefits, and general scorn for their roles and constant slashing of military budgets resulting in logistics disasters that make the Pentagon seem sound, that these young men and women still sign up for this, you gotta commend their dedication.

For example, British soldiers are put into shitty NHS hospitals that are filthy where they are subject to abusive behavior for anti-military radicals. Their pay is deplorable. And they were sent to Iraq with a bigger logistics nightmare than the US was.

As far as them giving into the Iranian propoganda machine, can you blame them? The Iranians were playing headgames with them, threating torture, imprisonment, rape, and execution. The British armed forces, like a good chunk of the American armed forces, has suffered the same lack of focus on military training and more focus on garbage like sensitivity training, so they troops were probably not even given the hardening training needed. Remember, when the troops were asked why they did not fight the Iranians, they stated they were not give the authority to, and were told not to provoke an international incident. That alone tells you the limp-dick politicians who are running this war are still tip toeing around the whole war and are more concerned with "international incidents" as opposed to laying down the law with the Iranian psychos who are basically roaming Iraqi waters. Had the soldiers fired on the Iranians and put the smack down, they would probably all be sitting waiting in a British prison for their court martial. With such spineless leadership, can you really blame them for what they did in surrendering, knowing their own country and leaders wont back them?

The selling of their stories is deplorable, but really, how quickly you forget the fiasco with Jessica Lynch. I mean, not only was their the book deal, but she even got Baba- Wawa interview.

Seriously, folks, everyone still exists in a delusional state about the real condition of US and British forces. Clinton's legacy on the armed forces has not been erased, and I really can't say that the US marines and sailors would do it any different if they were caught.

One would have thought that by learning from Vietnam, we would know letting spineless clueless politicos run a war is a sure step down the road to defeat.
By Twilight_Rogue: posted on 11-4-2007








Iranian Hostages | [Login ]
Powered by XMB
Privacy Policy